How far do people use public space as designers intended

Marcos Anton Bañon (11236031) Primali Paramagamage

I

The use of public space, a designer’s enigma: How far do people use public space as designers intended?

II

Content:

Illustration page………………………………………………IV-­‐V Introduction………………………………………...................VI-­‐VII Users dilemma on public space….……………..VI Nowadays Public space thoughts……………..VII

I) Public space as designers intended………………...VIII-­‐XV 1) Physical benefits Urban planners in public spaces………………XIII 2) Social benefits Different cultures in social life…………………IX-­‐XI 3) Economical benefits Civic places benefit cities economically…… XI-­‐XII 4) Limits of public space The example of the arboretum park………..XIII Boundaries of urban space..……………………XIV-­‐XV

II) Public space seen by the community…………….XVI-­‐XIX 1) Different groups in public spaces……………..XVI-­‐XVII 2) University library “fail”…………………………...XVIII-­‐XIX

III) Case studies emphasising the dilemma………..XX-­‐XXV 1) William H. Whyte Thesis…………………………XX-­‐XXI 2) The Seagram’s plaza………………………………XXI-­‐XXII 3) How to keep people in public spaces……….XXII-­‐XXIII 4) Barcelona’s busiest square (case study)….XVIII 5) Logroño’s Train station (Case Study)……..XXIV 6) Dysfunctional features…………………………..XXV

Conclusion……………………………………………………….XXVI-­‐XXVII Relationship between social and design…XXVI Public spaces intention………………………….XXVII

References……………………………………………………….XXVIII-­‐XXIX

III

List of illustrations

1.“Fuente de Orfeo, plaza de la provincia”, Madrid, 14th August 2008, Author: Luís García.

Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fuente_de_Orfeo_(Madrid)_03.jpg

2. “Fountain outside Sheffield railway station, Sheaf Square”, Sheffield, 2010; Author: Ruth Sharville.

Source: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1931526

3. “Niños bañándose en la fuente de la plaza de la montañeta”(kids swimming inside the fountain of the Monatñeta square), Alicante, 22nd August 2011; Author: Daniel Madrigal.

Source: http://www.laverdad.es/murcia/multimedia/fotos/provincia-­‐ alicante/82821-­‐ninos-­‐banandose-­‐fuente-­‐plaza-­‐montaneta-­‐3.html.

4. “Vistas Boulevard Villa Julia”, Barcelona, 2009; Author: Andarax Source: http://www.panoramio.com/user/164957

5. “Borough market Londres”, London, 15th April 2013; Author; Juan Mata.

Source: http://blogs.grada360.com/juanmata/en/2013/04/15/amargo-­‐regreso-­‐a-­‐ wembley/

6. “Arboretum, Lincoln”, Lincoln, 24th April, 2011; Author: Alan Peach.

Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/alansaxman/5653480083/

7. “Diagram of public urban movement”, Philadelphia, December 2011; Author: Charles Lindberg, Audrey Plummer, Sean Wilson and WenWen Zhao.

Source: http://www.arch.gatech.edu/node/3320/lightbox2

8. “Conservatory of flowers in Golden Gate Park”, Philadelphia CA, 2009; Author: Wolfman SF Source: http://www.bugbog.com/english_speaking_countries/united_states/south_west/san _francisco_travel.html

9. “Lincoln university campus new public space”, Lincoln UK, 2013.

Author: Marcos Anton Bañon.

Source: own

10. “Lincoln university campus new public space by night”, Lincoln UK, 2013.

Author: Marcos Anton Bañon.

Source: own

IV

11. “Plaza and entrance of Seagram’s plaza”, New York, 25 September 2000.

Author: Dr. Justin Wyss-­‐Gallifent.

Source: http://www.math.umd.edu/~dng/WorldCourses/WRLD125/ARCH/Seagram.html

12. “Image of Seagram’s plaza model”, New York, 1999.

Author: Roger Smith Source: http://electricbranch.wordpress.com/tag/modern-­‐design/

13. “Waiting area at Logroño’s train station”, Logroño Spain, July 2012.

Author: Marcos Anton Bañon Source: own image

14. “Elderly enjoying public space”, LaRioja Spain, july 2012.

Author: Marcos Anton Bañon Source: own image

15. “Diagram about public urban space” , Barcelona Spain, 17th February 2011.

Author: El carrito Source: https://learningfrombarcelona.wordpress.com/2011/02/

V

Introduction: 1) User’s dilemma of public space For many years, public spaces have been a difficulty for urban planners, from the roman forum, to the Spanish public plazas. “A first thought that comes to mind when analyzing public space, as considered by academics of different theoretical leanings, is that it is a space of unrestricted access and free utilization” (Macio Moraes Valença, 2012). Moreover, the focus of public space has changed dramatically in the past 60 years. In the late 1950s, urban designers cared about essentially creating an effective walkway for daily pedestrians. Nowadays, the design of public spaces is not just about providing seats, or how the space is built, or how much it is going to cost, but on its function, how people are going to use it, how they are going to interact with it as well as its political function. “There are three main goals of urban design: to design and build urban developments which are both structurally and functionally sound while at the same time giving pleasure to those who see the development” (Cuesta, Sarris and Signoretta, 2004: p.3).

Today, public spaces are designated as “all areas that are open and accessible to all members of the public in a society, in principle though not necessarily in practice” (Orum and Neal, 2010: p.1), and have become an essential part of the city in a society.

Urban designers have developed a space where an individual, as well as a group, can gather and enjoy different activities as well as a space owned and respected by the public users.

Urban planners have always acknowledged that the social and physical aspects of public space illustrate a large role in the creation of public spaces as well as public culture. From this affirmation, the following question can be asked: How can we shape the city by means of open spaces? “The broad goal of urban design is to provide opportunities, behavioral and aesthetic, for all the citizens of and visitors to a city or one of its precincts. These opportunities have to be accessible”. (Lang, 2005: p.20).

Currently, a good urban design can add quality, character and also value to a city.

VI

2) Nowadays public space thoughts

Moreover, in the past twenty years, the attitude of people towards grey and industrial spaces has created a dramatic change in cities. For instance, the city of London is now trying, by means of several projects like the Skycycle by Foster and Partners or the recreation of the Battersea power station, to create a better image of the city rather than the industrial and busy image that London had before. Citizens now consider parks and green spaces as an essential factor for our urban environment (Johnson, 2009).

The diverse positive aspects of open spaces have long been admired, for instance, during the industrial revolution open spaces like Victoria Park in London were essential for workers to escape from their repetitive and hard lives. Furthermore, in a today’s city, even if the work conditions as well as health have extremely improved their quality, open spaces are still essential for everyone’s life, “Modernist urban planning was also motivated by a desire for more “hygienic” environments” (Whitbread and Murray, 2009). Designers do not always acknowledge the many aspects needed to be considered when designing a public space, as a result, some people or communities might be excluded; therefore, the public urban spaces may be functioning essentially for a restricted group of people or certain communities instead of all the public surrounding the area.

After analyzing all these several aspects, this essay explores several aspects of today’s public space as well as its use. To begin with, it analyses public space as designers intended, illustrated with case studies and elaborating on what urban planners consider when they design an urban public space as well as its economical benefits and its differences in distinctive cultures.

This essay analyses the limits of public space planning supported by a personal example of the Arboretum Park in Lincoln, UK, additionally, the text continues to examine public spaces focusing on its use by the community. Finally, it ends by a complete study on how people can use furniture in urban public spaces in an uncommon way. From all these reasoning, this essay tries to answer the question, how far do people use public space as designers intended?

VII

I) Public space as designers intended

1) Physical benefits of public space

For many centuries, urban designers have thought about urban spaces through different angles always assigning them a purpose, or a function. Throughout history, individuals and communities have evolved in a philosophical and creative way showing designers the diverse various ways one can use their creations, and this has radically affected the way in which public spaces are designed, “what has changed is what its users, policy-­‐makers and designers consider important.[…]It can afford activities, provide shelter, and act as a display that communicates meanings”. (Lang, 2005: p11-­‐13) Therefore, urban planners try to design the most accurate space as well as a defined purpose and a specific function. Designers need to always have in mind all the different aspects which are going to make them have “the debates between absolute and relational space, the dilemma between physical and social space, between real and abstract and differential space, between space and place, between space and time” (Madanipour, 1996: p. 28)

From all these previously mentioned aspects, the designer sets a purpose for his public space (park, children playground, theatre, plaza, etc.). In many cases, this function is respected by the community on how the urban planners intentioned it to be used. However, on different occasions, individuals as well as groups use these spaces differently, can one say that this space is then misused? For instance, tourists use the public plaza of Fuente de Morfeo in Madrid, Spain, which has a beautiful Greek fountain in the center, surrounded by rigid modern stone benches; as intended people sit on the benches and look at the fountain. Nevertheless, Madrid residents would rather sit on the fountain and just contemplate and listen to the sound of the water, (Figure 1). This example leads us to the next question; could one then consider some aspects of the public space more important than others?

VIII

Figure 1

Supporting this argument of the examination, Jon Lang affirms that “there is a hierarchy of human needs from the most basic (survival) to the most abstract (aesthetic). (Lang, 2005: p13) This perception is one of the aspects why public spaces characteristics of one specific culture cannot be copied or transferable to other cultures with full benefit.

2) Social benefits of public space

Nevertheless, different cultures have different needs, therefore different public spaces; could one then consider some public spaces better than others by its culture?

For instance, the Sheffield train station water fountain brings a different perspective of water than the multiple water fountains at the “Plaza de la Montañeta” in Alicante, Spain. In Sheffield, in front of the water feature there is a siting area, which makes access to the water more difficult, and while an individual sits he can contemplate and enjoy the relaxing sound of the waterfall, (figure2).

IX

Figure 2

However, in the case of the Spanish plaza in Alicante, the water is completely accessible to everyone day and night, and also seats are located surrounding the water feature and they are facing the fountains (Figure 3). Carrying on with this Spanish design, children can freely play around with the water while their parents can enjoy a nice chat as well as watch their children directly.

For a second let’s imagine that the water feature of Alicante is located in front of the Sheffield train station; would the children be using the public space wrongly? On the other hand, if Sheffield’s water sculpture were situated in Alicante, would the community appreciate not being facing the water but just listening to its water falling down?

Figure 3

X

Another case study that illustrates the social benefits of public space is “Via Julia Boulevard” in Barcelona, Spain. Via Julia is nowadays a semi-­‐elevated boulevard in the centre with a canopy, which forms the backbone of the whole system of public spaces in the area, (Figure 4). The precise planning of Via Julia, coupled with strong participation by residents’ associations in the process makes it interesting to analyse the practical results concerning the use and appropriation of this space by neighbours. Even with the noise of the traffic that varies in intensity throughout the day, the general atmosphere of Via Julia is both agreeable and peaceful. Meanwhile, one can get an impression of excitement, brought about by its use as a road and path in every direction, including the flow in and out the metro station situated under the boulevard. “Via Julia’s design and structure encourage the creation of areas for both rest and action, as well as meeting points” (Dolors, Ortiz and Prats, 2004, p. 219). This example illustrates how a public space in a busy and noisy city can benefit people bringing them a quiet and pleasant urban space to gather.

Figure 4

3) Economical benefits of public space Favorable urban places bring several physical and evident economic benefits, like the effect of high-­‐quality public space on a district’s property values. Properties that confront Boston’s Post Office Square, for instance, appreciate lease rates 10 percent higher than those without a view to an open space.

XI

Moreover, in San Francisco, the planning of contemporary and improved green space has advantaged to significant increases in property values, which in turn have encouraged tax revenues for the local council. Furthermore, another way public urban spaces reach economic objectives is by creating new public markets. For instance, in the city of London, the Borough market at Southwark Street has been a major incentive in the revitalization of the surrounding neighborhood, expanding residential construction and bringing opportunities for small-­‐scale entrepreneurship (Cameron, 2005), (Figure 5). Nevertheless, the River Market in Little Rock, Arkansas has made an even more spectacular contrast on that city’s downtown, catalysing the increase of residential apartments construction, several museums, as well as a sports arena.

Figure 5

Renovating streets as pedestrian places for walking and gathering can also benefit a city or town economically. In the city of Elche, Spain, street improvements that incorporated wider sidewalks, large trees, enhanced parking, and a leasing and development program conceived by local residents helped bring downtown’s Chapel Street back to life, leading people back to businesses in a crucial area of the city (Alonso, 2012).

XII

4) Limits of public space.

The Arboretum Park in Lincoln, England has an extensive variety of outdoor furniture as well as a big green space and a hard landscape situated close to a residential area, (Figure 6). I decided to analyse the Arboretum using the following methods; first of all, I created a questionnaire, which reveled what the local community thought about this park. The main response was that the Arboretum is the main park of the city, they also called it heart of Lincoln, and mentioned it well-­‐organized furniture. The goal of this study was to see if, by doing things out of the normal, I could change people’s mood, and also see if they will imitate my behavior of treating the furniture on the site in a different manner.

Initially, I observed and concluded that everyone on this specific site were using the furniture as intended, sitting on the benches, walking on the bridges, and walking along the pavement. From this observation, I decided to realise my first attempt to change people’s behaviour. I started using a bench uncommonly ergo, how designers did not intend to. The first reaction I had from the public was not positive; nearly all the individuals left the place. However, on my second attempt, I started using the benches as tables, and the response of the individuals was surprising. After spending one whole morning with no conclusions or answers, finally an individual copied my “wrong” way of using the furniture. Therefore, I went to him and asked why would he use the bench as a table, and his answer was “I’ve seen it done before”. A bench is designed for people to sit, a table for people to support their food, drinks, books, etc.

On the other hand, no one said that this was the only function of the bench.

Therefore, this analysis takes me to the next question: Why do people not use the furniture in public urban spaces freely if this space is been made for them?

Figure 6

XIII

5) Boundaries of public space

“Public space is […] an ‘essentially contested concept’. It is internally complex, enables a variety of interpretations in different domains, and has both normative as well descriptive connotations” (KOHN, 2008: 480). Nice public space use is characterised by diverse aspects like pleasantness, accessibility, or warmth.

Moreover, this ideally space needs to allow different urban and social situations, some of them individual, and some of them in groups, (Figure 7). The matter of public space use is one of space and use, with individual behavior and spatial practices at its core. Understanding its dynamics and investigating the potential role of urbanism in its promotion requires that the spatial, social and experiential conditions of the phenomenon (SIMÕES AELBRECHT, 2010) are taken into account. This argument illustrates the complexity of urban public space. For instance, commercial centers propagate the question of accessibility and guides urban designers to discuss the limits of public spaces “managed by private owners” (Tonnelat, 2010). In first place, cafeterias and public squares will illustrate two specific ways of communication; this will show designers the way on how to join the philosophical and political dimensions of public urban space with the field of planning. Moreover, train stations could explore the relationship between mobility and urban space. Finally, public parks could show the problems or needs of public space and the role of citizens' participation in the design of the city.

Figure 7

XIV

In summary, this argument shows the limits of public space and analyses its causes; “ Planning, designing and management’s impacts on public space use will always be limited”, (Tonnelat, 2010).

These two arguments support the subject and lead it to following this question; in what ways could an architect tests urban space limits? Generally in the past, architects would disregard or not pay attention to people when designing public space. Nowadays, designers show more and more interest towards the public and the communities. Despite this fact, “The human backside is a dimension architects seem to have forgotten”, as William H. Whyte said in his documentary “The social life of

small urban spaces”(1980).

Summarising this first section, urban designers when planning a public space, have in mind different benefits: physical, social, and economical. Nevertheless, there are some limits and boundaries when designing an urban space. Therefore, designers should predict some of the future reactions of users, or on the other hand, redesign old and non-­‐functioning spaces.

XV

II) Public space seen by the community

1) Different groups in public spaces

From the early 70s, communities of people began to expand in number as well as become more visible. After the industrial revolution in America, there were essentially two kinds of communities within the city: working men, and women house wife (Navarrete, 2004). Nowadays, public urban spaces previously designed for individuals lost a part of their function. For instance, women in north America started getting their exclusive public space in the early 1970s, “ This richly woven history ranges from the seventeenth century to the present as it masterfully traces the movement of American women out of the home and into the public sphere” (Matthews, 1992). Public spaces for groups give the opportunity to gather in different multiple ways; how do groups perceive public spaces compared to individuals?

There are different types of groups or communities, everyday users, visitors and tourists, passersby, nostalgic visitors and visitors for events or shows. The first and more important group, everyday users, consists on the regular people living and/or working in the zone, which represent normally the majority of people as well as those who will more appreciate any improvements or ameliorations (Freestone, 2000).

Therefore, their needs and appreciations should be kept in mind since the beginning of the planning. A related good example which shows the importance of this first kind of community is the golden gate park in San Francisco, California, (Figure 8). This park illustrates a satisfactory urban space for the daily users, “Golden Gate Park has provided San Franciscans, as well as visitors from around the world, a wondrous experience since its creation in the 1870's”, (Wirz, 2004). Moreover, a random urban designer did not design this public park, but it was a San Francisco resident chosen after a public design competition in 1866. This fact shows the big role of citizens in this specific project. Secondly, visitors and tourists are the group who will just have a first impression and will use the space freely, not always as intended. This group will then be more attracted by the aesthetic of the urban space (Spirou, 2011).

XVI

Figure 8

Thirdly, this group of people, passersby, correspond to a community which specifically chose this urban space as a passed through site. This group could chose to pass through an specific site for many reasons, and the designer should make sure that these reasons are favorable for the other communities.

Finally, visitors to events are a community, who go there for a particular reason. A common public space may not be able to receive a concrete type of event. Therefore, there might be a change in terms of furniture and/or creation of new spaces (Freestone, 2000). In either case, this urban public space will be used in an uncommon way, different to the one the designer or designers intended.

For instance, a playground would be addressed to a specific type of groups: children, youth, mothers and fathers as well as elderly admiring children playing.

Nonetheless, individuals often transit those spaces as well, how do they react in front of a space leaded for a specific kind of groups?

Furthermore, urban designers tend to give to their construction multiple uses for diverse groups. However, some public places may just get the attraction of one specific kind of group but, How can a community appropriate a space?

XVII

2) Example of the University of Lincoln new area

The library of the university of Lincoln has recently had an extension of its building as well as a creation of a new public sculpture in front. In this case, the pubic new furniture is located in between the library and the main campus pub. From this location, the architects designed a space suitable for different groups such as library students, youth going to the pub or local people just enjoying the sun. The structure is composed of three main features, the main standing area, steps all around the design and a ramp, (Figure 9). Nevertheless, after a few days of its opening, the new and thoroughly studied space was empty because of its confusing purpose.

Figure 9

Notwithstanding, after two weeks, the space started to get some attraction by a different kind of group: skaters. This attraction started for a small and simple feature of the structure, its ramp that architects designed for disable users. However, the designers made sure not to attract skaters, just in case they could damage the structure, by placing multiple gaps in between every seat of the surface. Today, this site is practically considered as a space essentially for skate boarders, (Figure10).

Even though if this public space is now become a skater area, it creates a contrasted atmosphere in front of the relaxed and peaceful university library.

XVIII

Figure 10

This example then illustrates how urban designers, after a thoughtful research, do not always get the use of their space they expected. Therefore, different communities see an urban space in diverse ways as the designer intended. Moreover, this case study then explains how a public space, already own by a specific group of people, can attract other kind of communities.

XIX

III) Case studies emphasising the dilemma.

The following section is a composition of several case studies revealing the crucial question of urban designers; what are the limits when designing a specific public urban space?

1) William H. Whyte thesis

“It is difficult to design a space that will not attract people-­‐ what is remarkable is how often this has been accomplished”, William H. Whyte, American urban planner.

Nowadays, urban designers seem to have a main goal, create places to be admired and not used. This decision leads the public spaces to be empty, immaculate and tidy-­‐ as Joseph Stalin said, “no man, no problem”.

On the other hand, if a public space has these issues or besides the people who use it are not what the designer intended, indicates that there is an existing problem with its features and design, or its administration, as William H. Whyte mentioned in his documentary: “tree canopies, water features, sculptures and food vendors all played a role in attracting people to urban plazas and parks”, (Figure 11).

The study concluded that the greater the number of these key features, the more people gravitated to these public spaces.

Figure 11

XX

This documentary about the social life of small urban spaces as well as its book reveal different conclusions about the behaviour of people in public spaces.

On a first place, at the early beginning of his documentary, William deduces that small urban spaces such as a gathering plaza in front of a business building are more visited and occupied by individuals and couples rather than by big groups or communities.

Another interesting fact from the film is that even if people have many possibilities to choose between different types of seats in the plaza, they prefer to gather and chat at the corners of the public space, just at the interjection point of people’s walkways.

2) The Seagram’s plaza

The Seagram building is one of the most remarkable and emblematic buildings of New York City designed by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Philip Johnson, therefore one of the busiest business quarters (New york Magazine, 2000). The architects of this building decided to invest more money on having a public space in front of the building as well as cutting off the façade of the ground floor for then making a bigger and more accessible public area. (Figure 11) The space in front of the building left for the public is denominated “Seagram’s Plaza”.

This plaza is characterised by its water feature designed by Mies van der Rohe, which consist on two different rectangular water tanks located at the edges of the entrance of the site with a water fountain on each side. (Figure 12)

Figure 12

XXI

These water rectangles were designed to give some sort of uniqueness to the plaza as well as to please the public with the relaxing and monotonic sound of water (Whyte, 1980). Furthermore, these fountains are surrounded by siting areas, which gives the community as well as individuals a nice and relaxing place for different purposes.

Leaving back these diverse siting areas, designers did think that the space between the pool and the sitting area would just be a decorative and elegant motif for the swimming pool. However, this narrow and slippery space is used as a walkway for children who want to be “walking on the water”, as well as a footrest for adult groups and tourists. This curious fact brings us to the following question; would this be explained by a necessity of human to be more communicated with nature?

3) Antonio Gaudí’s strategy

At this point, architects thought about communicating nature with architecture (placing the fountains next to sitting areas) but people wanted to get even closer to it, so the community took the intention of the designers to relax and gather next to the water, but taking it further, “People tend to sit where there are places to sit” (William H. Whyte).

Carrying on with Whyte’s point of view, designers should not have as aim to attract more people to sit, but to give them more choice. An example which corroborates Whyte’s opinion are the famous Antoni Gaudí’s benches on top of the Parc Güell in Barcelona bring an enormous variety of seating. In this case, Gaudí thought on attracting people to sit at first because of its colours, its similarity to nature, and its strong concept of breaking ceramic.

Nevertheless, Antonio Gaudí giving this shape brings the opportunity to people to look at each other while sitting at the same time as having big spaces in between the benches for groups to gather or even make a picnic.

Different components lead the individual as well as communities to interpret furniture in public spaces badly. In a first place, abounding public spaces have a lack of seating space, which force the individual as well as the groups to accommodate themselves in their own way.

XXII

4) Barcelona’s busiest square

For instance, the Plaza de España in Barcelona was created in 1929 for the universal exhibition. Nowadays, the purpose of this square has change dramatically and transforms this place into one of the busiest attractions of the city.

This new image of the space bring a difficult task for Barcelona’s city; how to preserve the beauty and history of the space as well as making it a gathering space. Besides, the famous “magic fountain” of Montjüic located in the centre of the plaza, during the night brings the most hoped show of the day; thousands of people attend this spectacle every night. However, the public urban spaces consists on an enormous row of stairs from top to bottom, which gives the public a free chance to find seating. An absence of seating space is then an important aspect for a community as well as for an individual. Furthermore, another remarkable reason why a group of individuals would interpret wrongly a piece of furniture inside a public space would be the lack of gathering points. For instance, a public space with a play area will attract a group of children as well as their family, but one space without this playground will force the children to play in a different way, with a different kind of furniture.

XXIII

5) Logroño’s train station

For example, Logroño’s train station has seats, which are separated 60cm from each other as well as facing against each other. From these aspects, an individual waiting for his train to arrive will find a very comfortable and apart seat. However, for a group of people, these seats will not be comfortable for a friendly chat, or a family gathering while waiting for the train. In this case, the urban designers Ábalos and Sienkiewicz dedicated more time on thinking about the aesthetic of these benches rather than on their function.

Figure 13

Figure 14

XXIV

6) Dysfunctional features

These different case studies illustrate several conclusions. In first place, William H. Whyte deduces that there is no need to design colourful or cheerful public spaces to attract people, but a functional and practical space. Nevertheless, Antonio Gaudí sets a hypothesis about how people could be more attracted to nature and organic shapes rather than static and unnatural forms. The sitting area at the train station in the north of Spain emphasises the importance of communication while using a public space. Nevertheless, this sitting area also concludes that dysfunctional features often are designed simply to punctuate the space, serving a use more visual than functional, instead of encouraging activity to occur around.

Furthermore, Barcelona’s touristic space exposes how people can interact along the public space with the absence of sitting area, how a community can change the purpose of a space, (Figure 15). Finally, different components lead the individual as well as communities to interpret furniture in public spaces badly.

From these diverse outcomes, the following questions could be interrogated: The first fact, which makes a good use of pubic space, is that there are people inside, should the designer consider essentially accessibility and access?

Do architects and designers think about what would happen if their designed space would be used in another way?

Figure 15

XXV

Conclusion “This important change in the character of life in present day public spaces underlines the importance of creating high quality spaces, which in a convincing way invites the citizens to come and to participate. The demand for good quality public space design is becoming increasingly more important”(Gehl 2003). When this factor is not in relationship, individuals will not attend. This failure can be observed in divers new cities, as this essay analyses, where designers just look for untouched and clean spaces where people are even scared of going and seat. Urban designers should then have the aesthetical concerns in the back of their heads but always putting people’s comfort and freedom first. A thoughtful study to a community-­‐oriented design is needed. Nevertheless when the design is neatly made, when the main banal qualities are met it can be found that the citizens responds very eagerly. Well-­‐ designed public spaces are nearly internationally also very wanted and well-­‐used urban spaces.

To conclude this piece of writing, many case studies can show this relationship between individuality offered and people’s answer: “In Denmark the city of Aarhus has opened up its city-­‐river, which was covered in the 1960´s to make room for a traffic street. The result is one of the most attractive, populated (and economically viable) spaces in the Kingdom” (Gehl, 2003). Another example could be of the city of Copenhagen where, in over forty years, the traffic streets as well as the plazas of the center of the city have change dramatically in terms of people. Nowadays, the central streets of Denmark’s capital city are freed of traffic and are much more concerned on people’s activities rather than on the traffic. In 1962 there were 15.00 square meters set aside for people. By 2003 the area available as good quality public space is 100.000 square meters.

The conclusion from all these several examples is that the viewpoint is put forward that urban space and urban life are an amalgam in our modern community. Sadly today, the big domination of electronics controls our modern social lives. However, people still chose public spaces as locations to gather with each other or as communication points.

XXVI

Therefore, there is a decreasing necessity for the people to go to urban public spaces to communicate with each other. These philosophies lead unfortunately to a vast number of nowadays communities all over the world; are people underestimating public architecture? However, urban architecture has proved that wherever there is a public space thought for people, their comfort and their necessities, there is a more happy and active social life despite our electronic society. Therefore, urban public spaces are in spite of our modern and electronic social life, still an attraction for people to escape, gather and enjoy the outside World. One may even suggest that the good public spaces which create a nice environment as well as a functional and methodic social life, increases the levels of the activity of people as well as in their social behavior and work. Going straight to the point one could even distinguish two different poles in terms of city planning.

On the other hand unfortunately, in countries like England or America, the urban public life is decreasing little by little, accentuating the privatization of social life (creating new private car parks for example) as well as privatizing a big part of our public space with new shops and clubs. Furthermore, in other countries, the public life is increasing for example converting a traffic line into a pedestrian walkway, from this public humanistic point of view; the social life between citizens rises rapidly.

However, this factor makes the appearance of a big contrast between public and private life. On the other hand, despite the privatization of our world, public urban spaces are gaining in importance, but at the same time people are getting more and more exigent in terms of functions and purposes of the space. Dolefully, this exigency can now have an excuse because public life has now become optional instead of a necessity.

XXVII

Bibliography Alonso, M. 2013. El foro de Elche denuncia que Alonso semipeatonice la calle de su despacho privado, pp.1. [electronic article].

Fried, B. 2010. Archiving great federal public space. U.S. general service, pp. 40-­‐46.

[Accessed: 1 Dec 2013].

Gaudí, A., Asensio, P., Cuito, A. and Feierabend, P. 2004. Gaudí obra completa =.

Berlin: Feierabend.

Lang, J. 2005. Urban design. Oxford: Elsevier/Architectural Press.

Madanipour, A. 1996. Design of urban space. Chichester: Wiley.

Martin, R. 1969. Looking at Spain. London: Black.

Moughtin, C. 2003. Urban design. Oxford: Architectural Press.

Navarrete, Ana. 2004 The gendered city: espacio urbano y construcción de género : 1rst. ed. Cuenca: Ediciones de la Universidad de Castilla-­‐La Mancha.

Orum, A. and Neal, Z. 2010. Common ground?. New York: Routledge.

Dolors M., Ortiz A., and Prats A. 2004 "Urban planning, gender and the use of public space in a peripherial neighbourhood of Barcelona." Cities 21.3. 215-­‐223. Print.

Scarpaci, J. 2005. Plazas and barrios. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Shane, D. 2011. Urban design since 1945. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley.

Silverman, W. 1982. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces William H. Whyte, Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation, 1980.

Spirou, Costas. Urban tourism and urban change: cities in a global economy. New York: Routledge, 2011.

XXVIII

The social life of small Urban Spaces. 1980. [video] Fordham university, New York.: William H Whyte.

Whitbread, A. and Murray, D. 2009. Place making: celebrating quality and innovation in urban life.. Academy of Urbanism, pp. 56-­‐64.

Whyte, W. 1980. The social life of small urban spaces. Washington, D.C.: Conservation Foundation.

Wirz, N. 2004. The golden gate park. San Francisco, CA: PPS, project for public spaces.

XXIX